PROOF NEEDED FOR NEW EXCURSIONS
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
SAFEGUARD1NG his position by pointing out that he had no power to interpret the law, Mr. J. H. Stirk, chairman of the East Midland Traffic Commissioners, last week explained the onus of proof resting upon applicants for additional excursions.
Applicants must be able, he said, to present evidence that there was a definite demand from the public to be conveyed on the tours in question, and that such traffic could not, prima facie. be carried by any other operator who already held a licence for those tours.
If an applicant presented evidence showing that the operator already having authority to run such tours did not meet the needs of the public, and that evidence was not rebutted by objectors, such evidence was bound to weigh heavily in the applicant's favour.
NEWCASTLE WATCHES GATESHEAD BILLS.
NIEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE Parlianrn/ tary Committee has had under consideration the Bill being promoted by Gateshead Town Council, which proposes that the corporation should take over the undertaking of Gateshead and District Tramways Co, and introduce trolleybuses.
It is pointed out that Newcastle Corporation's tramways terminate at the Gateshead ends of the Tyne and High Level Bridges and that the corporation has power, by applying to the Ministry of Transport, to run trolleybuses over the bridge.
The committee's report states that there is another clause in the Bill to empower Gateshead to abandon tramways on routes where trolleybuses are to be started. It is suggested that steps be taken to safeguard Newcastle Corporation's position under its agreement with Gateshead and District Tramways Co. for the through running of •trams.
Similar steps are recommended to be taken as regards the Bill promoted by the Gateshead company.